How many wars have there been between democracies?
Even without the EU, I doubt that France and Germany would have fought a war in the last 50 years.
That argument is the equivalent of throwing talcum powder out of the window and claiming that it keeps elephants away
I think you can make a pretty good argument for the case that the EU has been an important factor in helping countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, and the Balkan states in making the transition to democracy, and has therefore contributed to peace in Europe. Certainly that's what many of the citizens of those states think.
However, either way it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether the UK should leave the EU. Any effect, beneficial or otherwise, will subsist whether we leave or not. It's a red herring (but no doubt will be used by the Remain side).
Margot Parker, UKIP MEP for the East Midlands, with Peter Bone, Conservative Member of Parliament for Wellingborough, Kate Hoey, Labour Member of Parliament for Vauxhall, Tom Pursglove, Conservative Member of Parliament for Corby & East Northamptonshire, Philip Hollobone, Conservative Member of Parliament for Kettering, Sammy Wilson, DUP Member of Parliament for East Antrim, and UKIP Leader, Nigel Farage MEP, with special guest, the Rt. Hon Dr Liam Fox MP, all taking part.
Is Fox a GRO man then? (Or just a media tart)
When is this from? The event last Friday or a new event? The reason I ask is that when they claimed Sammy Wilson was attending a GRO event last week they got absolute hammered by the DUP who denied it completely saying they had not allied with GRO.
Earlier:
The national launch of GO took place on Saturday 23rd January 2016 in Kettering, Northamptonshire, with speakers from the Conservative Party, Labour, UKIP and the DUP.
I see Ms Sturgeon is inferring that the UK leaving the EU will "inevitably" trigger a new independence referendum.
More than happy for them to be able to decide their own destiny of course. What I have Never quite got my head around is the argument that they want independence because they can't determine their own future while demanding that UK remains fully shackled to Europe but if not, then only to immediately shackle themselves to a group, not of 4 members but 27 who will then determine their destiny.
That’s when the wholly ridiculous contradiction arises because whilst many nationalists support staying in the EU many more want another vote on separation and currently the only way their leader says that’s going to happen quickly is through a UK ‘Leave’ vote. But irony of ironies, that same leader says she’s going to campaign remorselessly against that ‘Leave’ vote – thus, presumably, helping to make that ‘indy’ vote an even more distant prospect......
It’s all very confusing and in many ways contradictory for my nationalist friends. But then that’s not really a new situation for them.
No, the quickest way for it to happen is through a UK Leave vote with Scotland voting Stay. It's only if you are a moron and leave out the second condition that makes it confusing.
That's really for the EU to say; No. 10 does not figure in the decision, unless they are proposing to block any delay in our secession and insist on full withdrawal immediately after a Leave vote, which I strongly doubt.
@nicholaswatt: No 10 dismisses @odysseanproject call for 2nd #euref: PM will trigger article 50 exit clause in Lisbon Treaty after Leave vote 1/2
There is no exit from the exit clause. If Downing Street triggers article 50 (which is what they are saying they will do) there is nothing the EU can do to prevent that from happening
The decision lies in Downing Street, not Brussels.
accept the fact that Boris has made a choice and your side wasn't it.
I have no side, but I am extremely amused by the Outers claiming Boris as the new messiah, when every journalist reading his text has reached the conclusion he is a very naughty boy
Not every journalist, just the Remainians and the useful idiots.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
What's wrong with being a backer of big businesses and multi nationalists, I'm also fine with massive free movements of people?
Big businesses operate in their own interests, which are not necessarily aligned with the interests of the country. They are corporatist in nature and employ lobbyists to drive up regulatory barriers to entry.
SMEs are what drive economic growth and employment, and that's the segment the government should be promoting.
@paulwaugh: No10 dismisses Boris idea of 2nd Vicky Pollard referendum: "there are only two choices for the British people, that's remain or leave"
Guff
if we vote leave the Commission will move like a rat up a drainpipe to correct the "wrong" answer
The Commission can't pass a second referendum bill, can't stop the 22 removing a Tory leader who refused to implement Leave, and would find it very hard to shift British public opinion in a pro-EU direction (it could easily shift it the other way though).
People go on about Michael Gove's integrity, but is it just possible he was a bit ticked off to be replaced at education? and by a socialist like Nicky Morgan?
On the one hand, pupils are told, we have western liberal democracies and on the other hand we have societies built around different values, for example, religious law. These are very different societies but each has an equally valid point of view. In line with so-called ‘British values’ our schools are promoting the ‘middle ground’ between different beliefs and different ideologies. All of this is exceptionally well intentioned. The ‘middle ground’ is not supposed to provide a launching pad for radicalism but, unfortunately, that can be the consequence.
Unwittingly, the endemic ‘value relativism’ within our education system is encouraging youngsters to see fundamentalism as one equally valid choice amongst several. It is time our political and educational leaders woke up to this awful truth. The path to hell always was paved with good intentions.
Thank you. Morgan is a rank socialist, masquerading as a conservative.
No doubt you also think that Ken Clarke is a marxist and Nick Griffin was just misunderstood.
FWIW, and having seen them in action, I'm unconvinced that the consequences of Gove's stay at Education will be as priapically exciting as some Conservatives seem to think. There's more than a strong whiff of "building a better yesterday" around them.
Going back to the question of which Leave campaign will be designated as the official lead, the test is:
if there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to the Commission to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome
It's not clear to me whether 'to the greatest extent' means representing the widest range of views amongst those campaigning for the outcome, or the widest range of political allegiances, or is a numeric test (most members? most individual donations?).
As things stand, I think either of the Leave camps could make a credible case.
I agree. It is not clear at all which one would be chosen. Personally obviously I hope it will be Vote Leave. To my mind both their message and their advocates are more likely to win over moderates. But how on earth you decide who represents the 'to the greatest extent those campaigning to leave' is not at all obvious.
On political allegiances both sides have representatives from Tory, Labour and UKIP. I get the impression the DUP are more inclined to Vote Leave then G.O. after the spat last week. PC and the SNP have no one official as far as I can see on the Leave side and nor do the other NI parties.
It will be interesting - and probably very significant - to see which group the EC picks.
Personally, I think both sides need to get over themselves and unite. This is a straight binary choice, in or out, so 'Leave' should be capable of encompassing a multiplicity of views on other political issues. From what I hear most of the stubborness over uniting seems to be coming from 'Vote Leave', but that could be a one-sided view.
The new united campaign should be called 'Be Leave'.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
The largest destination for Eurozone exports is the UK, at around 2.5% of Eurozone GDP. (Marginally ahead of China at 2.4%)
Clearly, access to the UK market is very important to the EU, and therefore sense will prevail.
Hearing Cameron and Osborne are going to introduce legislation like this
Mike Smithson: How long before someone proposes a US-style "birther" rule restricting being PM to those born in UK?
We've never needed such a rule.
The Yanks, on the other hand, in 1787 were terrified that we (or some other tyranny) might raise "a creature of their own" to the Presidency, fatally subverting the nascent Republic.
So they insisted on the best safeguard they had, that the President must have undivided loyalty at birth, and only natural born citizens satisfy that test.
But they were wise enough to include a clause that permitted the Constitution to be amended, if circumstances and the will of the People desired it.
Several attempts have been made to do just that. All have so far failed.
Therefore no-one can have any complaints. Cruz should have run for PM of Canada, or indeed the UK!
The US didn't recognise dual citizenship until quite recently. It's clear that the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" needs to be clarified as existing case law is unsatisfactory (for instance, all citizenship is artificial).
They may recognize it. But they still deprecate it. Cruz would not have been eligible to be an intern at the White House, before relinquishing his Canadian citizenship in 2014. Obama probably still wouldn't qualify for that, despite occupying the Oval Office for 8 years...
The phrase doesn't need to be 'clarified'. It has always been clear, however inconvenient to some.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners... Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
accept the fact that Boris has made a choice and your side wasn't it.
I have no side, but I am extremely amused by the Outers claiming Boris as the new messiah, when every journalist reading his text has reached the conclusion he is a very naughty boy
Except no one has said he is the messiah, you've just been panic copy and pasting and people have been calling you out on it
People go on about Michael Gove's integrity, but is it just possible he was a bit ticked off to be replaced at education? and by a socialist like Nicky Morgan?
On the one hand, pupils are told, we have western liberal democracies and on the other hand we have societies built around different values, for example, religious law. These are very different societies but each has an equally valid point of view. In line with so-called ‘British values’ our schools are promoting the ‘middle ground’ between different beliefs and different ideologies. All of this is exceptionally well intentioned. The ‘middle ground’ is not supposed to provide a launching pad for radicalism but, unfortunately, that can be the consequence.
Unwittingly, the endemic ‘value relativism’ within our education system is encouraging youngsters to see fundamentalism as one equally valid choice amongst several. It is time our political and educational leaders woke up to this awful truth. The path to hell always was paved with good intentions.
The problem of "tolerating the intolerant" is not new. AFAIK no one has an answer to it.
@faisalislam: Number 10 confirms that a leave vote would trigger the PM activating Article 50 Lisbon Treaty at European Council - unclear whether June 24
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
And Boris is different how?
FFS. He is supporting Leave, the Corporatists and corporations want to Remain, that should be a big enough clue even for you.
Boris is a City boy. He is not supporting leave to set SMEs free. Like the big corporations and the banks, he supports free movement of goods, people, services and capital.
It is the free movement of people question rather than personalities that will eventually determine the outcome of this referendum. The gaping faultline in the Leave case (the Leave EU and Vote Leave split is not just about money and recognition) is that a Norway style solution will mean free movement continues. While personally I might be happy with that, the majority of potential Out voters will not and could instead decide they may as well vote Remain and avoid the huge disruption a Leave vote will entail. Of course Gove, Hannan and Carswell will argue their sovereignty case to the end of days but for the majority of voters (as opposed to the majority of PB Outers) like it or not it ranks a poor second to concerns about the migrant influx. If that issue is not going to be clearly solved by a Leave vote then Remain will walk the referendum.
There is no exit from the exit clause. If Downing Street triggers article 50 (which is what they are saying they will do) there is nothing the EU can do to prevent that from happening
The decision lies in Downing Street, not Brussels.
Oh give it a break, There was no way in EU rules that the ECB could do half the things it needed to prop up various banks and currencies... until it did. The EU is very good at bending rules to suit it self, that is part of the whole problem with it!
I see Ms Sturgeon is inferring that the UK leaving the EU will "inevitably" trigger a new independence referendum.
More than happy for them to be able to decide their own destiny of course. What I have Never quite got my head around is the argument that they want independence because they can't determine their own future while demanding that UK remains fully shackled to Europe but if not, then only to immediately shackle themselves to a group, not of 4 members but 27 who will then determine their destiny.
That’s when the wholly ridiculous contradiction arises because whilst many nationalists support staying in the EU many more want another vote on separation and currently the only way their leader says that’s going to happen quickly is through a UK ‘Leave’ vote. But irony of ironies, that same leader says she’s going to campaign remorselessly against that ‘Leave’ vote – thus, presumably, helping to make that ‘indy’ vote an even more distant prospect......
It’s all very confusing and in many ways contradictory for my nationalist friends. But then that’s not really a new situation for them.
No, the quickest way for it to happen is through a UK Leave vote with Scotland voting Stay. It's only if you are a moron and leave out the second condition that makes it confusing.
It's not hard.
So why is Nicola going to campaign for Remain in England?
Is she a moron? Or doesnt she want another referendum?
@paulwaugh: No10 dismisses Boris idea of 2nd Vicky Pollard referendum: "there are only two choices for the British people, that's remain or leave"
Guff
if we vote leave the Commission will move like a rat up a drainpipe to correct the "wrong" answer
The Commission can't pass a second referendum bill, can't stop the 22 removing a Tory leader who refused to implement Leave, and would find it very hard to shift British public opinion in a pro-EU direction (it could easily shift it the other way though).
In your dreams.
The electorates get told there is no second vote until the second vote turns up.
In/Out discussion on Five Live showed the vague nature of the Remain offer, with considerable waffle about influence and the world stage. Leave crystal clear by comparison on EU contribution, trade deficits and cumbersome bureaucracy, citing global alternatives and progress.
Leave depend on Big state Love, fear of the Tories and cling to Nurse fear.
It does. The elected government supports free movement of people within the EU.
Pish. Cameron asked for a hard cap on immigrant numbers in this very renegotiation and got told it was a non-starter. The UK government does not control the immigration policy of the UK.
Then why isn't Cameron advocating Leave? Clearly free moment is not a huge issue for him.
Probably because he's a corporatist and backs big business and multinats much like Blair and Brown did.
And Boris is different how?
FFS. He is supporting Leave, the Corporatists and corporations want to Remain, that should be a big enough clue even for you.
Boris is a City boy. He is not supporting leave to set SMEs free. Like the big corporations and the banks, he supports free movement of goods, people, services and capital.
It is the free movement of people question rather than personalities that will eventually determine the outcome of this referendum. The gaping faultline in the Leave case (the Leave EU and Vote Leave split is not just about money and recognition) is that a Norway style solution will mean free movement continues. While personally I might be happy with that, the majority of potential Out voters will not and could instead decide they may as well vote Remain and avoid the huge disruption a Leave vote will entail. Of course Gove, Hannan and Carswell will argue their sovereignty case to the end of days but for the majority of voters (as opposed to the majority of PB Outers) like it or not it ranks a poor second to concerns about the migrant influx. If that issue is not going to be clearly solved by a Leave vote then Remain will walk the referendum.
That's really for the EU to say; No. 10 does not figure in the decision, unless they are proposing to block any delay in our secession and insist on full withdrawal immediately after a Leave vote, which I strongly doubt.
@nicholaswatt: No 10 dismisses @odysseanproject call for 2nd #euref: PM will trigger article 50 exit clause in Lisbon Treaty after Leave vote 1/2
There is no exit from the exit clause. If Downing Street triggers article 50 (which is what they are saying they will do) there is nothing the EU can do to prevent that from happening
The decision lies in Downing Street, not Brussels.
That's exactly what I said. It will have to be an active decision on their part. 'We will not stay in the EU because I will insist on us leaving' does not carry the same weight as 'We won't be able to stay in because they won't let us'. The latter would be a statement of fact, the former is pointless threat.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
The largest destination for Eurozone exports is the UK, at around 2.5% of Eurozone GDP. (Marginally ahead of China at 2.4%)
Clearly, access to the UK market is very important to the EU, and therefore sense will prevail.
So marginally, at the moment, more friendly to us than to China?
It is the free movement of people question rather than personalities that will eventually determine the outcome of this referendum. The gaping faultline in the Leave case (the Leave EU and Vote Leave split is not just about money and recognition) is that a Norway style solution will mean free movement continues. While personally I might be happy with that, the majority of potential Out voters will not and could instead decide they may as well vote Remain and avoid the huge disruption a Leave vote will entail. Of course Gove, Hannan and Carswell will argue their sovereignty case to the end of days but for the majority of voters (as opposed to the majority of PB Outers) like it or not it ranks a poor second to concerns about the migrant influx. If that issue is not going to be clearly solved by a Leave vote then Remain will walk the referendum.
There is some truth in that. The reason why we can't get rid of an awful lot of people we don't like, and don't want, isn't the EU, it's the ECHR and Article 8. The kippers are at least honest and consistent on this, which is why their Manifesto contained withdrawing from the EHCR and dis-applying the equivalent legislation in the UK.
Yes it is. I already quoted him this morning saying that as a result of a Leave vote we would have to negotiate new trade agreements. That specifically precludes us being inside the EU.
Stop making yourself look petty and stupid and accept the fact that Boris has made a choice and your side wasn't it.
It's all a bit irrelevant anyway. We're not rival teams of barristers arguing over the precise meaning of a 250 page joint venture agreement in front of the Court of Appeal.
To 99% of the voters, Boris has declared for Leave.
Yes it is. I already quoted him this morning saying that as a result of a Leave vote we would have to negotiate new trade agreements. That specifically precludes us being inside the EU.
Stop making yourself look petty and stupid and accept the fact that Boris has made a choice and your side wasn't it.
It's all a bit irrelevant anyway. We're not rival teams of barristers arguing over the precise meaning of a 250 joint venture agreement in front of the Court of Appeal.
To 99% of the voters, Boris has declared for Leave.
Precisely
most of the threads of the last two days have been anoraks debating anoraks.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Generally if your geopolitical competitor want you to do something it's a good idea to double check whether it's really in your interests before proceeding.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al will still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
How many wars have there been between democracies?
Only one: between the UK and Finland, according to Mervyn King.
Indeed, and that was largely technical (because Finland invaded the Soviet Union). Although I think we did bomb some of their ships, but only before the declaration of war.
F1; first test underway. I wonder if the reporting's dumbed down, or the BBC's F1 team actually thinks this sort of thing makes sense: "Sebastian Vettel to finish the morning section of testing top? He's just improved to 1:24.939.
So far so good from Ferrari. Have they closed the gap between themselves and Mercedes?"
The times don't matter. The size of the fuel tank and the impact of tyres, as well as variable engine settings, make the times essentially meaningless. It's not 2009, with bulletproof Bridgestones and a fuel tank the size of a tea cup [alas].
Listen to the mood music. Ignore the headline times.
@tnewtondunn: Big blow for Boris's Leave to Remain: No10 say Cameron would block a 2nd renegotiation by triggering Article 50 talks to leave EU.
and you don't think it's possible - if a second referendum were offered - for the UK and all member states to agree to suspect Article 50 until after the result is known?
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
We must be careful, though. The Russian state has been very active at funding anti-fracking groups in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave money to Brexit campaigners secretly too, which could backfire horribly for us.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al will still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
We must be careful, though. The Russian state has been very active at funding anti-fracking groups in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave money to Brexit campaigners secretly too, which could backfire horribly for us.
Luckily the honeypot trap for your dad was foiled before they could spring it, thanks to PBers' vigilance.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Generally if your geopolitical competitor want you to do something it's a good idea to double check whether it's really in your interests before proceeding.
I couldn't care less what Putin says or thinks about the self-governance structure of the UK. In fact, I find it rather insulting. It's none of his business.
European unity in opposing his imperialist expansion does not rest on us continuing to surrender legal and economic sovereignty. NATO, our bilateral deals and our foreign policy is what deters Russian aggression.
I don't recall Russia being "delighted" we weren't in the EEC in the 1950s and 1960s and "devastated" when we joined it in 1973.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
We must be careful, though. The Russian state has been very active at funding anti-fracking groups in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave money to Brexit campaigners secretly too, which could backfire horribly for us.
They must be losing their touch if they have been obvious enough about it that people noticed.
@tnewtondunn: Big blow for Boris's Leave to Remain: No10 say Cameron would block a 2nd renegotiation by triggering Article 50 talks to leave EU.
Fine with me.
But we all know Cameron and Osborne are being very silly (again) and showing their Flashman side's.
In reality, should the UK vote LEAVE this pair would be on their hands and knees grovelling to Angie to throw them a few more bones so they can have a second referendum...
The designation could still just about go to Leave EU (the Farage option) because the campaign can claim – as required in the designation process – to be cross party. But it is unlikely. What is more likely after the events of the weekend is a move away from GO to Vote Leave, after some delicate diplomacy this week by Gove, Elliott and leading donors, allowing Tories and Labour people who went to Banks and GO a way back. Look at those front-pages today and the media impact of Boris, who is backing Vote Leave. If Leave – the outsiders – are to stand a chance of overtaking Remain then there is is only one option. There is only one show in town. That’s Vote Leave.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
We must be careful, though. The Russian state has been very active at funding anti-fracking groups in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave money to Brexit campaigners secretly too, which could backfire horribly for us.
It would, and it wouldn't surprise me if Aaron Banks and his ilk in their naivety took it.
But that's an argument to robustly oppose Putin's nefarious meddling, not to Remain in the EU.
The designation could still just about go to Leave EU (the Farage option) because the campaign can claim – as required in the designation process – to be cross party. But it is unlikely. What is more likely after the events of the weekend is a move away from GO to Vote Leave, after some delicate diplomacy this week by Gove, Elliott and leading donors, allowing Tories and Labour people who went to Banks and GO a way back. Look at those front-pages today and the media impact of Boris, who is backing Vote Leave. If Leave – the outsiders – are to stand a chance of overtaking Remain then there is is only one option. There is only one show in town. That’s Vote Leave.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
We must be careful, though. The Russian state has been very active at funding anti-fracking groups in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave money to Brexit campaigners secretly too, which could backfire horribly for us.
They must be losing their touch if they have been obvious enough about it that people noticed.
I don't want our victory to be in any way funded by Vladimir Putin. Despite Nigel Farage's admiration for him, I think he's been a disaster for Russia, and one that will become increasingly obvious as the commodities downcycle continues.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
We must be careful, though. The Russian state has been very active at funding anti-fracking groups in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave money to Brexit campaigners secretly too, which could backfire horribly for us.
It would, and it wouldn't surprise me if Aaron Banks and his ilk in their naivety took it.
But that's an argument to robustly oppose Putin's nefarious meddling, not to Remain in the EU.
Yugoslavia? Ukraine? Where is this peace you talk of? I think the EU has done a poor job of securing peace on our continent since the cold war meant it wasn't just a case of Europe on both sides of the curtain doing what they were told.
Gove's piece was excellent but we still need to be clear what the alternative is: in the EEA or out of it? In the single market or out of it (presumably with some sort of trade deal)? Gove is capable of giving intellectual coherence to Leave but whether the others on that platform will agree with him (including Boris) remains to be seen.
Peace within the EU countries.. It actually gives extra credence to the argument because Yugoslavia and Ukraine are both outside the EU. I don't think there's any denying that relationships between Germany, France Italy and the UK have improved through political union.
Anyway, voting to leave or not is, and should be, a very conflicting issue. I admire anyone who is absolutely sure on it, because it is fraught with ifs and buts. I'm willing to take the risk because even if we do leave and fall flat on our faces, at least we have the power within our own grasp to change things.
How many wars have there been between democracies?
Even without the EU, I doubt that France and Germany would have fought a war in the last 50 years.
That argument is the equivalent of throwing talcum powder out of the window and claiming that it keeps elephants away
That's unknowable isn't it? Imagining the history of post-War Europe without the EU is too big a counterfactual to say anything very definite about. There are too many other huge factors: the Cold War, German war guilt, the fact that two of the biggest European countries have nuclear weapons.
That doesn't entirely nullify this as an argument in favour of the EU though as we know for certain that no EU members have ever come anywhere close to armed hostility. We can only guess that that would have been the case anyway if the EU had never existed. I've always thought Leavers tend to be overly sanguine about this. Possibly Remainers are overly alarmist.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Generally if your geopolitical competitor want you to do something it's a good idea to double check whether it's really in your interests before proceeding.
I couldn't care less what Putin says or thinks about the self-governance structure of the UK. In fact, I find it rather insulting. It's none of his business.
European unity in opposing his imperialist expansion does not rest on us continuing to surrender legal and economic sovereignty. NATO, our bilateral deals and our foreign policy is what deters Russian aggression.
I don't recall Russia being "delighted" we weren't in the EEC in the 1950s and 1960s and "devastated" when we joined it in 1973.
Pointless scaremongering.
No it's not. We live in a very different world from the 50s and 60s and the Russia is now run like a giant corrupt corporation which uses state power to advance its commercial interests. Russian assertiveness is not limited to the military sphere. Just look at the example of Gerhard Schroeder being in the pay of Gazprom.
What's the latest from the betting markets? Is this even going to be close? Surely Remain to win by at least 15 percentage points? Am I missing something?
What's the latest from the betting markets? Is this even going to be close? Surely Remain to win by at least 15 percentage points? Am I missing something?
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Generally if your geopolitical competitor want you to do something it's a good idea to double check whether it's really in your interests before proceeding.
I couldn't care less what Putin says or thinks about the self-governance structure of the UK. In fact, I find it rather insulting. It's none of his business.
European unity in opposing his imperialist expansion does not rest on us continuing to surrender legal and economic sovereignty. NATO, our bilateral deals and our foreign policy is what deters Russian aggression.
I don't recall Russia being "delighted" we weren't in the EEC in the 1950s and 1960s and "devastated" when we joined it in 1973.
Pointless scaremongering.
No it's not. We live in a very different world from the 50s and 60s and the Russia is now run like a giant corrupt corporation which uses state power to advance its commercial interests. Russian assertiveness is not limited to the military sphere. Just look at the example of Gerhard Schroeder being in the pay of Gazprom.
So what?
That's to do with Germany not us.
In the 1960s we were threatened by nuclear devastation and came bloody close in 1963.
Unity of the West versus Russia does not depend on political union in Europe, which has happened since Maastrict signed *after* the Berlin Wall fell.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al will still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
I don't think those FTAs include services to any meaningful degree, which is the only sector we have an opportunity of building up a surplus.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al will still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
Did they ever have them? I don't think so, thus it was never an issue. My point is that there are no likely leaders of the Conservative party - whether on the Leave or Remain side - who are advocating that freedom of movement be curtailed in any significant way. And it is the Conservative party that will conclude any Brexit deal.
Some poor researcher at R5 is currently getting a proper bollocking off the bosses.
They decided to run this big thing about illegal immigrants massing in Zeebrugge, sorry migrants (the fact the mayor of Zeebrugge calls them illegals), and that our EU membership allows us to have deals like the one with France where we send border agents over etc etc etc. And we will be overrun with illegals if we leave the EU.
So on they bring a 40 year veteran of the border agency, where Adrian "Golly" Chiles gives it the big what a disaster if we left the EU, we couldn't have the situation we currently have with France, let alone expanding it to other countries.
Confused sounding former border agency bod...the agreement with France is nothing to do with the EU, it is a bi-lateral agreement with France.
Yeah, yeah, but it is all because of our EU membership
Errrh No it isn't....
[and this nonsense continues]
So given you worked for the border agency you must be pro European and voting for us to stay in....
Well I worked for May and for Boris. I like Boris a lot. So I don't know.
How many wars have there been between democracies?
Even without the EU, I doubt that France and Germany would have fought a war in the last 50 years.
That argument is the equivalent of throwing talcum powder out of the window and claiming that it keeps elephants away
I think you can make a pretty good argument for the case that the EU has been an important factor in helping countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, and the Balkan states in making the transition to democracy, and has therefore contributed to peace in Europe. Certainly that's what many of the citizens of those states think.
However, either way it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether the UK should leave the EU. Any effect, beneficial or otherwise, will subsist whether we leave or not. It's a red herring (but no doubt will be used by the Remain side).
Unfortunately there are some on the Remain side who are claiming that it is the EU that has kept the peace in Europe for the last 60 years. Richard Branson for one.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Generally if your geopolitical competitor want you to do something it's a good idea to double check whether it's really in your interests before proceeding.
I couldn't care less what Putin says or thinks about the self-governance structure of the UK. In fact, I find it rather insulting. It's none of his business.
European unity in opposing his imperialist expansion does not rest on us continuing to surrender legal and economic sovereignty. NATO, our bilateral deals and our foreign policy is what deters Russian aggression.
I don't recall Russia being "delighted" we weren't in the EEC in the 1950s and 1960s and "devastated" when we joined it in 1973.
Pointless scaremongering.
No it's not. We live in a very different world from the 50s and 60s and the Russia is now run like a giant corrupt corporation which uses state power to advance its commercial interests. Russian assertiveness is not limited to the military sphere. Just look at the example of Gerhard Schroeder being in the pay of Gazprom.
So what?
That's to do with Germany not us.
The point is that there is more at stake than just our membership of the EU. If the UK votes to leave it could well set in train a process which will put the entire future of the union in doubt. Then we really would have to worry about stability in our backyard again.
@paulwaugh: No10 dismisses Boris idea of 2nd Vicky Pollard referendum: "there are only two choices for the British people, that's remain or leave"
Guff
if we vote leave the Commission will move like a rat up a drainpipe to correct the "wrong" answer
The Commission can't pass a second referendum bill, can't stop the 22 removing a Tory leader who refused to implement Leave, and would find it very hard to shift British public opinion in a pro-EU direction (it could easily shift it the other way though).
In your dreams.
The electorates get told there is no second vote until the second vote turns up.
What do you expect the EU to say ?
What do *you* expect would happen?
If we vote Leave, I think Cameron must trigger Article 50 or he'll be out within days. You think he could sweet talk his backbenchers (the majority of whom will be celebrating like it's VE Day) into letting him ignore the result of the referendum?
Fwiw I think most Remainers, myself included, would not accept that.
Yugoslavia? Ukraine? Where is this peace you talk of? I think the EU has done a poor job of securing peace on our continent since the cold war meant it wasn't just a case of Europe on both sides of the curtain doing what they were told.
Gove's piece was excellent but we still need to be clear what the alternative is: in the EEA or out of it? In the single market or out of it (presumably with some sort of trade deal)? Gove is capable of giving intellectual coherence to Leave but whether the others on that platform will agree with him (including Boris) remains to be seen.
Peace within the EU countries.. It actually gives extra credence to the argument because Yugoslavia and Ukraine are both outside the EU. I don't think there's any denying that relationships between Germany, France Italy and the UK have improved through political union.
Anyway, voting to leave or not is, and should be, a very conflicting issue. I admire anyone who is absolutely sure on it, because it is fraught with ifs and buts. I'm willing to take the risk because even if we do leave and fall flat on our faces, at least we have the power within our own grasp to change things.
How many wars have there been between democracies?
Even without the EU, I doubt that France and Germany would have fought a war in the last 50 years.
That argument is the equivalent of throwing talcum powder out of the window and claiming that it keeps elephants away
That's unknowable isn't it? Imagining the history of post-War Europe without the EU is too big a counterfactual to say anything very definite about. There are too many other huge factors: the Cold War, German war guilt, the fact that two of the biggest European countries have nuclear weapons.
That doesn't entirely nullify this as an argument in favour of the EU though as we know for certain that no EU members have ever come anywhere close to armed hostility. We can only guess that that would have been the case anyway if the EU had never existed. I've always thought Leavers tend to be overly sanguine about this. Possibly Remainers are overly alarmist.
I agree it's a huge counterfactual.
But I think it is a specious argument that the EU has contributed to world peace.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
We must be careful, though. The Russian state has been very active at funding anti-fracking groups in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave money to Brexit campaigners secretly too, which could backfire horribly for us.
They must be losing their touch if they have been obvious enough about it that people noticed.
I don't want our victory to be in any way funded by Vladimir Putin. Despite Nigel Farage's admiration for him, I think he's been a disaster for Russia, and one that will become increasingly obvious as the commodities downcycle continues.
I agree completely, its just the FSB's predecessors were supposedly the masters of false flag operations, they must be getting careless in the new regime if people are noticing them at work.
Some people don't seem to have got the memo about the direction the newspaper industry is headed. 50p for a crappier version of the Mirror. Sounds very appealing.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al will still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
Did they ever have them? I don't think so, thus it was never an issue. My point is that there are no likely leaders of the Conservative party - whether on the Leave or Remain side - who are advocating that freedom of movement be curtailed in any significant way. And it is the Conservative party that will conclude any Brexit deal.
Its interesting that the Vote Leave material talks about taking back control from Europe but conspicuously does not mention 'borders'......
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Generally if your geopolitical competitor want you to do something it's a good idea to double check whether it's really in your interests before proceeding.
I couldn't care less what Putin says or thinks about the self-governance structure of the UK. In fact, I find it rather insulting. It's none of his business.
European unity in opposing his imperialist expansion does not rest on us continuing to surrender legal and economic sovereignty. NATO, our bilateral deals and our foreign policy is what deters Russian aggression.
I don't recall Russia being "delighted" we weren't in the EEC in the 1950s and 1960s and "devastated" when we joined it in 1973.
Pointless scaremongering.
No it's not. We live in a very different world from the 50s and 60s and the Russia is now run like a giant corrupt corporation which uses state power to advance its commercial interests. Russian assertiveness is not limited to the military sphere. Just look at the example of Gerhard Schroeder being in the pay of Gazprom.
So what?
That's to do with Germany not us.
The point is that there is more at stake than just our membership of the EU. If the UK votes to leave it could well set in train a process which will put the entire future of the union in doubt. Then we really would have to worry about stability in our backyard again.
Ah, that's different. A full break-up of the EU might well be in Putin's interests if it detaches the Baltic States.
So, if we Leave, as a quid pro quo we should offer to support EU cohesion and stability in any way we can, provided that is what the member states wish for.
"most of the threads of the last two days have been anoraks debating anoraks."
The only people really concerned are the fanatics on both sides, and that's probably why it's getting heated. One side could easily win by 20% depending on what happens in early June.
So 20% definite outers vote, 20% definite inners vote, the other 60% vote or don't vote depending on weather, what's on the telly, and recent headlines.
Whatever the result, the UK will sail on happily and none of the worst-case scenarios will happen.
What's the latest from the betting markets? Is this even going to be close? Surely Remain to win by at least 15 percentage points? Am I missing something?
If the TV is full of people pushing down fences and brawling with border guards next month, Leave will win.
If there is a major terrorist outrage on mainland Europe in the next four months, Leave probably win, if it is tied to the immigration situation, Leave definitely win.
If there is a major banking crisis, or sovereign debt crisis in the new four months, Leave win
If the deal unravels spectacularly, such as been declared unlawful by the ECJ, Leave win.
If nothing particularly exciting happens for the next four months, Remain wins.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Generally if your geopolitical competitor want you to do something it's a good idea to double check whether it's really in your interests before proceeding.
I couldn't care less what Putin says or thinks about the self-governance structure of the UK. In fact, I find it rather insulting. It's none of his business.
European unity in opposing his imperialist expansion does not rest on us continuing to surrender legal and economic sovereignty. NATO, our bilateral deals and our foreign policy is what deters Russian aggression.
I don't recall Russia being "delighted" we weren't in the EEC in the 1950s and 1960s and "devastated" when we joined it in 1973.
Pointless scaremongering.
No it's not. We live in a very different world from the 50s and 60s and the Russia is now run like a giant corrupt corporation which uses state power to advance its commercial interests. Russian assertiveness is not limited to the military sphere. Just look at the example of Gerhard Schroeder being in the pay of Gazprom.
So what?
That's to do with Germany not us.
The point is that there is more at stake than just our membership of the EU. If the UK votes to leave it could well set in train a process which will put the entire future of the union in doubt. Then we really would have to worry about stability in our backyard again.
If the EU can;t stand without us that triggers a whole host of questions.
Primarily, why don;t they just give us what we want, and ask us if we want sugar on top?
Yugoslavia? Ukraine? Where is this peace you talk of? I think the EU has done a poor job of securing peace on our continent since the cold war meant it wasn't just a case of Europe on both sides of the curtain doing what they were told.
Gove's piece was excellent but we still need to be clear what the alternative is: in the EEA or out of it? In the single market or out of it (presumably with some sort of trade deal)? Gove is capable of giving intellectual coherence to Leave but whether the others on that platform will agree with him (including Boris) remains to be seen.
Peace within the EU countries.. It actually gives extra credence to the argument because Yugoslavia and Ukraine are both outside the EU. I don't think there's any denying that relationships between Germany, France Italy and the UK have improved through political union.
Anyway, voting to leave or not is, and should be, a very conflicting issue. I admire anyone who is absolutely sure on it, because it is fraught with ifs and buts. I'm willing to take the risk because even if we do leave and fall flat on our faces, at least we have the power within our own grasp to change things.
How many wars have there been between democracies?
Even without the EU, I doubt that France and Germany would have fought a war in the last 50 years.
That argument is the equivalent of throwing talcum powder out of the window and claiming that it keeps elephants away
That's unknowable isn't it? Imagining the history of post-War Europe without the EU is too big a counterfactual to say anything very definite about. There are too many other huge factors: the Cold War, German war guilt, the fact that two of the biggest European countries have nuclear weapons.
That doesn't entirely nullify this as an argument in favour of the EU though as we know for certain that no EU members have ever come anywhere close to armed hostility. We can only guess that that would have been the case anyway if the EU had never existed. I've always thought Leavers tend to be overly sanguine about this. Possibly Remainers are overly alarmist.
I agree it's a huge counterfactual.
But I think it is a specious argument that the EU has contributed to world peace.
What's the latest from the betting markets? Is this even going to be close? Surely Remain to win by at least 15 percentage points? Am I missing something?
Remain drifting a little bit this morning. There was an OMG Boris overreaction yesterday followed by a Meh Boris overcorrection. Now we're back to the position as it was on Friday.
@paulwaugh: No10 dismisses Boris idea of 2nd Vicky Pollard referendum: "there are only two choices for the British people, that's remain or leave"
Guff
if we vote leave the Commission will move like a rat up a drainpipe to correct the "wrong" answer
The Commission can't pass a second referendum bill, can't stop the 22 removing a Tory leader who refused to implement Leave, and would find it very hard to shift British public opinion in a pro-EU direction (it could easily shift it the other way though).
In your dreams.
The electorates get told there is no second vote until the second vote turns up.
What do you expect the EU to say ?
What do *you* expect would happen?
If we vote Leave, I think Cameron must trigger Article 50 or he'll be out within days. You think he could sweet talk his backbenchers (the majority of whom will be celebrating like it's VE Day) into letting him ignore the result of the referendum?
Fwiw I think most Remainers, myself included, would not accept that.
I think Cameron will hang on, the EU will crap itself about losing a major member and will wish to give second round concessions to a friendly face rather than a hostile one, It's what happened in all then other second rounders.
I can;t really see Dave wanting to leave on a low nor his party wishing to knife him when he's already announced he is going. He may get Gove or IDS as a minder in negotiations.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Generally if your geopolitical competitor want you to do something it's a good idea to double check whether it's really in your interests before proceeding.
I couldn't care less what Putin says or thinks about the self-governance structure of the UK. In fact, I find it rather insulting. It's none of his business.
European unity in opposing his imperialist expansion does not rest on us continuing to surrender legal and economic sovereignty. NATO, our bilateral deals and our foreign policy is what deters Russian aggression.
I don't recall Russia being "delighted" we weren't in the EEC in the 1950s and 1960s and "devastated" when we joined it in 1973.
Pointless scaremongering.
No it's not. We live in a very different world from the 50s and 60s and the Russia is now run like a giant corrupt corporation which uses state power to advance its commercial interests. Russian assertiveness is not limited to the military sphere. Just look at the example of Gerhard Schroeder being in the pay of Gazprom.
So what?
That's to do with Germany not us.
The point is that there is more at stake than just our membership of the EU. If the UK votes to leave it could well set in train a process which will put the entire future of the union in doubt. Then we really would have to worry about stability in our backyard again.
Ah, that's different. A full break-up of the EU might well be in Putin's interests if it detaches the Baltic States.
So, if we Leave, as a quid pro quo we should offer to support EU cohesion and stability in any way we can, provided that is what the member states wish for.
The EU has not prevented countries that otherwise would have fought each other from going to war. That is a ridiculous argument. I do think, though, that it has been very helpful in transitioning not only Eastern European countries, but also Spain, Portugal and Greece, out of dictatorship, and maybe also in preventing Italy from tearing itself to pieces. All these things have been helpful from a geopolitical and trade perspective.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al will still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
Did they ever have them? I don't think so, thus it was never an issue. My point is that there are no likely leaders of the Conservative party - whether on the Leave or Remain side - who are advocating that freedom of movement be curtailed in any significant way. And it is the Conservative party that will conclude any Brexit deal.
Its interesting that the Vote Leave material talks about taking back control from Europe but conspicuously does not mention 'borders'......
Yes and it will be a big problem for both campaigns if leaders are making a supine case that we really have no choice no matter which direction we go in, and the referendum is being fought against the backdrop of a Trump-Clinton campaign in which voters will see the possibility of a very different approach.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al will still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
Did they ever have them? I don't think so, thus it was never an issue. My point is that there are no likely leaders of the Conservative party - whether on the Leave or Remain side - who are advocating that freedom of movement be curtailed in any significant way. And it is the Conservative party that will conclude any Brexit deal.
The key point is, if the Conservatives do that, and the public disagrees they can kick them out and elect someone else that will curtail it, currently, they can't.
How many wars have there been between democracies?
Only one: between the UK and Finland, according to Mervyn King.
Indeed, and that was largely technical (because Finland invaded the Soviet Union). Although I think we did bomb some of their ships, but only before the declaration of war.
Actually the Finns never invaded the Soviet Union. They stopped at the pre war borders and only took back the land that had been seized from them by the Russians earlier in the war.
The most bizarre argument made by Remainers is that Leaving the EU would "delight" Putin.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
Almost everything Remain has to say is downbeat. They really don't seem to have much faith in Britain.
If we leave the EU all the big firms will move out of GB. If we leave the EU Russia will be a greater threat. If we leave the EU we still won't be able to control immigration. If we leave the EU we will still have to comply with EU directives, but with no influence. If we leave the EU we won't be able to fight terrorism effectively.
This is quite simply a load of bollocks. Britain has come through much worse times than anything that will emerge as a consequence of leaving or remaining in the EU. I have no doubt that whatever we choose Britain will be doing just fine in the future, and a damn sight better than all the Emma Thompson like hand wringers seem to think.
'There seems to be an assumption that the other EU leaders will be friendly, helpful and sympathetic if we vote LEAVE. Will they be? Why should they be?'
Is a £61 billion trade deficit UK v EU a big enough reason ?
Presumably the Germans, French et al will still want to sell their products to the 5th largest economy in the world ?
And we'll want to buy them. There will clearly be some kind of agreement that enshrines free movement of goods, services, capital. And people. It's the last one that is the issue. Will a new agreement involve us giving away control of our borders, just as much as the current one does? It's hard to see how that will not be the case given that all those who are likely to make the decision will agree to that.
South Korea and Mexico have FTAs with the EU and no free movement of people.
Did they ever have them? I don't think so, thus it was never an issue. My point is that there are no likely leaders of the Conservative party - whether on the Leave or Remain side - who are advocating that freedom of movement be curtailed in any significant way. And it is the Conservative party that will conclude any Brexit deal.
The key point is, if the Conservatives do that, and the public disagrees they can kick them out and elect someone else that will curtail it, currently, they can't.
No, they can't. There will be an agreement in place and so we will be in exactly the same situation as we are in now. Frankly, it's actually a pretty decent reason to vote Leave: not much will change, but we may all feel better about ourselves.
@Plato - if all these scare stories are true then, barring a catastrophe of biblical proportions, we are not sovereign because we can never realistically Leave, as the consequences are too severe.
To me the fact such arguments are made just reinforces the fact that integration of the U.K. into the EU has already gone far as it is.
@tnewtondunn: Big blow for Boris's Leave to Remain: No10 say Cameron would block a 2nd renegotiation by triggering Article 50 talks to leave EU.
Fine with me.
But we all know Cameron and Osborne are being very silly (again) and showing their Flashman side's.
In reality, should the UK vote LEAVE this pair would be on their hands and knees grovelling to Angie to throw them a few more bones so they can have a second referendum...
Really? I think the idea of a second vote is plain silly. As someone who is very heavily tending Remain, a Leave vote is just that - I just don't think Remain will possess the evangelical fervour for a re-run, especially given the internal party politics (of the Tories especially) post a Leave Vote. Article 50 is THE route to honour the referendum result, not some ploy.
More likely a Remain will be challenged down the line every time implementation of any part of Cameron's negotiation looks in the slightest doubt.
Anyway, even if we do get a Leave vote, EFTA EEA membership would act as a pretty good second option proxy for Remaining, and a very very sore disappointment to many Leave voters once they saw in action what it entailed.
I wonder what do other Remainers feel about a Leave vote?
Yugoslavia? Ukraine? Where is this peace you talk of? I think the EU has done a poor job of securing peace on our continent since the cold war meant it wasn't just a case of Europe on both sides of the curtain doing what they were told.
Gove's piece was excellent but we still need to be clear what the alternative is: in the EEA or out of it? In the single market or out of it (presumably with some sort of trade deal)? Gove is capable of giving intellectual coherence to Leave but whether the others on that platform will agree with him (including Boris) remains to be seen.
Peace within the EU countries.. It actually gives extra credence to the argument because Yugoslavia and Ukraine are both outside the EU. I don't think there's any denying that relationships between Germany, France Italy and the UK have improved through political union.
Anyway, voting to leave or not is, and should be, a very conflicting issue. I admire anyone who is absolutely sure on it, because it is fraught with ifs and buts. I'm willing to take the risk because even if we do leave and fall flat on our faces, at least we have the power within our own grasp to change things.
How many wars have there been between democracies?
Even without the EU, I doubt that France and Germany would have fought a war in the last 50 years.
That argument is the equivalent of throwing talcum powder out of the window and claiming that it keeps elephants away
That's unknowable isn't it? Imagining the history of post-War Europe without the EU is too big a counterfactual to say anything very definite about. There are too many other huge factors: the Cold War, German war guilt, the fact that two of the biggest European countries have nuclear weapons.
That doesn't entirely nullify this as an argument in favour of the EU though as we know for certain that no EU members have ever come anywhere close to armed hostility. We can only guess that that would have been the case anyway if the EU had never existed. I've always thought Leavers tend to be overly sanguine about this. Possibly Remainers are overly alarmist.
I agree it's a huge counterfactual.
But I think it is a specious argument that the EU has contributed to world peace.
I think it's a fair argument that the EU has *contributed* towards peace in Europe.
It goes far too far to say that but for the EU, there would have been war.
Comments
However, either way it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether the UK should leave the EU. Any effect, beneficial or otherwise, will subsist whether we leave or not. It's a red herring (but no doubt will be used by the Remain side).
The national launch of GO took place on Saturday 23rd January 2016 in Kettering, Northamptonshire, with speakers from the Conservative Party, Labour, UKIP and the DUP.
http://grassrootsout.co.uk/who-we-are/
It's not hard.
There is no exit from the exit clause. If Downing Street triggers article 50 (which is what they are saying they will do) there is nothing the EU can do to prevent that from happening
The decision lies in Downing Street, not Brussels.
SMEs are what drive economic growth and employment, and that's the segment the government should be promoting.
No doubt you also think that Ken Clarke is a marxist and Nick Griffin was just misunderstood.
FWIW, and having seen them in action, I'm unconvinced that the consequences of Gove's stay at Education will be as priapically exciting as some Conservatives seem to think. There's more than a strong whiff of "building a better yesterday" around them.
The new united campaign should be called 'Be Leave'.
Indeed. More important than China.
In second place, bizarrely, is Slovakia at 3.4% of GDP.
People who have negligible trade surpluses with the UK: Bulgaria, France, Sweden, and Spain.
@tnewtondunn: Big blow for Boris's Leave to Remain: No10 say Cameron would block a 2nd renegotiation by triggering Article 50 talks to leave EU.
Is she a moron? Or doesnt she want another referendum?
@JohnRentoul 4 current MPs were MPs at time of the 1975 referendum; back then 3 of them voted No (Beckett, Kaufman, Skinner), 1 Yes (Clarke)
The electorates get told there is no second vote until the second vote turns up.
What do you expect the EU to say ?
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf
In/Out discussion on Five Live showed the vague nature of the Remain offer, with considerable waffle about influence and the world stage. Leave crystal clear by comparison on EU contribution, trade deficits and cumbersome bureaucracy, citing global alternatives and progress.
Leave depend on Big state Love, fear of the Tories and cling to Nurse fear.
Why on earth should we care what that slimeball thinks, or says?
To 99% of the voters, Boris has declared for Leave.
most of the threads of the last two days have been anoraks debating anoraks.
"Sebastian Vettel to finish the morning section of testing top? He's just improved to 1:24.939.
So far so good from Ferrari. Have they closed the gap between themselves and Mercedes?"
The times don't matter. The size of the fuel tank and the impact of tyres, as well as variable engine settings, make the times essentially meaningless. It's not 2009, with bulletproof Bridgestones and a fuel tank the size of a tea cup [alas].
Listen to the mood music. Ignore the headline times.
European unity in opposing his imperialist expansion does not rest on us continuing to surrender legal and economic sovereignty. NATO, our bilateral deals and our foreign policy is what deters Russian aggression.
I don't recall Russia being "delighted" we weren't in the EEC in the 1950s and 1960s and "devastated" when we joined it in 1973.
Pointless scaremongering.
The view counts on Liam Fox's "One Minute Fox" political relaunch video series are a bit grim. https://t.co/GIIQ6HHBGZ
But we all know Cameron and Osborne are being very silly (again) and showing their Flashman side's.
In reality, should the UK vote LEAVE this pair would be on their hands and knees grovelling to Angie to throw them a few more bones so they can have a second referendum...
The designation could still just about go to Leave EU (the Farage option) because the campaign can claim – as required in the designation process – to be cross party. But it is unlikely. What is more likely after the events of the weekend is a move away from GO to Vote Leave, after some delicate diplomacy this week by Gove, Elliott and leading donors, allowing Tories and Labour people who went to Banks and GO a way back. Look at those front-pages today and the media impact of Boris, who is backing Vote Leave. If Leave – the outsiders – are to stand a chance of overtaking Remain then there is is only one option. There is only one show in town. That’s Vote Leave.
http://capx.co/boris-johnson-has-blown-nigel-farage-out-of-the-water/
But that's an argument to robustly oppose Putin's nefarious meddling, not to Remain in the EU.
Not before time...
I hope he invested all those riches from the EU gravy train (while hating every minute of it) wisely.
That doesn't entirely nullify this as an argument in favour of the EU though as we know for certain that no EU members have ever come anywhere close to armed hostility. We can only guess that that would have been the case anyway if the EU had never existed. I've always thought Leavers tend to be overly sanguine about this. Possibly Remainers are overly alarmist.
That's to do with Germany not us.
In the 1960s we were threatened by nuclear devastation and came bloody close in 1963.
Unity of the West versus Russia does not depend on political union in Europe, which has happened since Maastrict signed *after* the Berlin Wall fell.
They decided to run this big thing about illegal immigrants massing in Zeebrugge, sorry migrants (the fact the mayor of Zeebrugge calls them illegals), and that our EU membership allows us to have deals like the one with France where we send border agents over etc etc etc. And we will be overrun with illegals if we leave the EU.
So on they bring a 40 year veteran of the border agency, where Adrian "Golly" Chiles gives it the big what a disaster if we left the EU, we couldn't have the situation we currently have with France, let alone expanding it to other countries.
Confused sounding former border agency bod...the agreement with France is nothing to do with the EU, it is a bi-lateral agreement with France.
Yeah, yeah, but it is all because of our EU membership
Errrh No it isn't....
[and this nonsense continues]
So given you worked for the border agency you must be pro European and voting for us to stay in....
Well I worked for May and for Boris. I like Boris a lot. So I don't know.
@DPJHodges No 10 has confirmed that already today, out is out and the PM will initiate article 50
If we vote Leave, I think Cameron must trigger Article 50 or he'll be out within days. You think he could sweet talk his backbenchers (the majority of whom will be celebrating like it's VE Day) into letting him ignore the result of the referendum?
Fwiw I think most Remainers, myself included, would not accept that.
But I think it is a specious argument that the EU has contributed to world peace.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35628729
Some people don't seem to have got the memo about the direction the newspaper industry is headed. 50p for a crappier version of the Mirror. Sounds very appealing.
So, if we Leave, as a quid pro quo we should offer to support EU cohesion and stability in any way we can, provided that is what the member states wish for.
"most of the threads of the last two days have been anoraks debating anoraks."
The only people really concerned are the fanatics on both sides, and that's probably why it's getting heated. One side could easily win by 20% depending on what happens in early June.
So 20% definite outers vote, 20% definite inners vote, the other 60% vote or don't vote depending on weather, what's on the telly, and recent headlines.
Whatever the result, the UK will sail on happily and none of the worst-case scenarios will happen.
If there is a major terrorist outrage on mainland Europe in the next four months, Leave probably win, if it is tied to the immigration situation, Leave definitely win.
If there is a major banking crisis, or sovereign debt crisis in the new four months, Leave win
If the deal unravels spectacularly, such as been declared unlawful by the ECJ, Leave win.
If nothing particularly exciting happens for the next four months, Remain wins.
Primarily, why don;t they just give us what we want, and ask us if we want sugar on top?
I can;t really see Dave wanting to leave on a low nor his party wishing to knife him when he's already announced he is going. He may get Gove or IDS as a minder in negotiations.
Some you win. Others you also win.
If we leave the EU all the big firms will move out of GB.
If we leave the EU Russia will be a greater threat.
If we leave the EU we still won't be able to control immigration.
If we leave the EU we will still have to comply with EU directives, but with no influence.
If we leave the EU we won't be able to fight terrorism effectively.
This is quite simply a load of bollocks. Britain has come through much worse times than anything that will emerge as a consequence of leaving or remaining in the EU. I have no doubt that whatever we choose Britain will be doing just fine in the future, and a damn sight better than all the Emma Thompson like hand wringers seem to think.
To me the fact such arguments are made just reinforces the fact that integration of the U.K. into the EU has already gone far as it is.
More likely a Remain will be challenged down the line every time implementation of any part of Cameron's negotiation looks in the slightest doubt.
Anyway, even if we do get a Leave vote, EFTA EEA membership would act as a pretty good second option proxy for Remaining, and a very very sore disappointment to many Leave voters once they saw in action what it entailed.
I wonder what do other Remainers feel about a Leave vote?
It goes far too far to say that but for the EU, there would have been war.